| OCR Text |
Show Chronicle intemew jg p B3IT16S... ! 1 s A- "TV- i a' J ...... -.. I I ,,IN ! V vy M By Nazir F. Khan (Editor's Note: This is fourth in a series of articles expressing the views of the faculty at the University. This interview is with Dr. John P. Barnes, assistant professor of English.) Khan: Dr. Barnes, you have been quite active within the political field here in Utah, and are a member of the Peace and Freedom Party. Why do you think that a third, or rather fourth party, is necessary in the existing political structure? And, why the Peace and Freedom Party? Barnes: Well, there is so little difference between the two major parties on really critical issues that I think we have to turn in the direction of a third party in order to accomplish the sorts of reforms we need. What I have in mind is first of all the attitudes of the forgotten men in '72. Do you think that McCarthy's followers have such short memories? And do you agree W1Bar1ne3s! Well, I don't know about the endurance of the memories of McCarthy's followers. I was a McCarthy follower. But, I'm afraid that Hoffer is right. The likelihood of the prediction is borne out by the recent events in Congress. I just noticed in today's issue of I.F. Stones Weekly that Stone concludes from his actions that "McCarthy is a diletante in politics as well as in his poetry. And I m afraid that's how we are going to have to write him off. "We can and ought to make literature relevant by overcoming the tendency that students have to compartmentalize their experiences. " weapons which are calculated to cause f. 'if' suffering. The Hague Conventions of Mj tn violated by such tactics as free-fire zone you know about these . . . ? ': ,p( Khan: No . . . jcn Barnes: They specify a zone where anvil lh( moves is destroyed. I mean this is a heavil u at ' country after all, in which you have a peasai'' 0111 moving around freely in the countryside, fc I Ps 1 do to the civilian population? be We have also subjected unprotected cities ii ,ra to aerial and naval bombardment, again, cofe olut Hague Conventions on the conduct of warfare lfie' So, with all these points in mind, any- tliat advocates such policies, knowing that his afc s ' be carried into effect is guilty of war-aims eign Army's field manual on the law of land w. lirm that anv breach of the law of war k a ,.;" ;r th two parties towards the war m Vietnam, inere isn i reany a nickel's worth of difference between the two parties on this issue. I think that is graphically illustrated by Nixon's coming into office to replace Johnson and Nixon's choice of Henry Cabot Lodge as our chief negotiator in Paris. And when you look at other major issues confronting the nation today, I think that the same thing is true-that is, that there is no critical difference between the two parties. Where do the two parties stand on the urban problem for example? Bobby Kennedy, before he was assassinated, made a proposal for remedying the difficulties inside the ghettos that smacks of Republicanism-that is that we turn to private enterprise to allow it to work its beneficent effects on the ghettos. Well, of course, the ghettos are a creation of private enterprise. Men find slums very profitable--in terms of the rents which accrue from them and the like. And to expect that private enterprise which has so little responsibility in other fields will go into the ghettos and remedy their situation is a fond hope. So, on those two critical issues, probably the most crucial issues of the day, there is little difference between the two parties. And, when you go from the war and the problems of the ghettos to other issues like the arms race and defense spending, again, you find no significant difference between the two parties. There is no difference "There is so little difference between the two major parties. " Because how else can you account for a man who ostensibly took the leadership--the moral leadership-of the peace forces in this country and now stands aside while Congress docilely accepts the nomination of a right-wing, apocalyptic thinker like Melvin Laird as Secretary of Defense? And so his action on Laird's nomination, his abandoning of his position on the prestigious Foreign Relations Committee-which allowed him a voice for his opinions, his refusal to support the candidacy of Teddy Kennedy against Long as majority whip-all these things seem to point in the direction of a very unstable political personality. And I'm afraid, on that point I'll have to agree with Hoffer. Khan: Who do you think could be a candidate to lead in '72, like McCarthy did in '68? Do you see any possibilities within the two existing parties or, perhaps, from within a third party? Barnes: Well, after what McCarthy has done, I'm extremely dubious about any established politician's coming forward to lead fragmentation within those dissident elements which is moving forward rapidly, there isn't likely to be any coalition of dissidents available by '72. There are certain things about Lindsay, which I like-which many people like-and I guess it is primarily his style again-the apolitical aspect. But I doubt very much if he could make an effective leadership of the kind of coalition we need to reverse the direction of things in this country. " So, I'm very pessimistic and skeptical about prospects we followed the precedents set at Nuremberg ' Rostow would not be rewarded with u a position but tried as a war criminal. You see, k porta decisions, which he knew that men would t e which he knew, or should have known, broke h; vefra land as well as laws of international war-wlit!. E him, a war criminal. Now, I would certainly be opposed to refit "J position because of his opinions. However, it i.. , gross moral failure for a faculty not to assen Sons' case like this where a man's actions are at isj: IDOSe simply his opinions ... jj Khan: Until late, members of the facult jyersj universities have sort of stuck to the ivory tott a,jsn gone outside those boundaries in'o politics ,m..ln issues. You seem to be quite .jvolved i: t unjv, happening around you. How do you malt t dm relevant to life within this background? jcjes ". . . the intimate involvement of thee with the causes o f war. " Barnes: Let me say, first of all, to use rer normative criterion by which to evaluate lite' a sound idea. There is a lot of very fine lite n may be highly irrelevant to most "issues."! other hand, we can and ought to make Went by overcoming the tendency that student: 5 people in general, have to compartmc-r between Johnson's response to the defense budget and that of Nixon, for example. In fact, Nixon made a great deal in his campaigning about the arms-gaps, missile-gaps, research-gaps and the like. And we can expect from Nixon and Melvin Laird an accelerated arms race. We have the first installment on that acceleration coming from the sentinel missile-the anti-missile missile. Therefore, I think it is imperative to turn to a third party, which if it cannot accomplish anything on the national scene, can make inroads locally into these problems. After the flurry of activity surrounding the last elections it was noticeable that the only party which continued to function as a group addressing itself to problems in any way, whatsoever, was the Peace and Freedom Party. The Peace and Freedom Party is actively engaged in trying to better the living conditions of people in Central City-no other political party in this state is so concerned. The Peace and Freedom Party is trying to disseminate information and to educate the public concerning the pursuit of chemical, bacteriological and biological warfare at the Dugway proving grounds which poses a real threat to the well-being of local citizens And of course, this sort of research is, at best, morally questionable. The Peace and Freedom Party is trying to make available information about the war in Vietnam-and on that count as well as on others it is the only political group which continues to function after the elections and which grapples with the problems which face this nation. Therefore, it is the only recourse one Many people, of course, shy away from something like he Peace and Freedom Party because of fastidiousness-well there is no other choice if you really -ish to effectively combat the ills of this country Hoff,eCenBy 3n inteiew with Eric Hoffer-, The Savage Heart"-in which Hoffer expressed W1V.1.'.1.',1,1.!"" muim'....,.5w.V ' "" !!. I. Ml I I ,, 1 1 1 1 1 , ( f , j ( t J 'f lor . i certainly don t think Teddy Kennedy is going to do it. Khan: How about Muskie? Barnes: No, no . . . Muskie is wholly an establishment man . . . Khan: Recently you wrote a letter to the editorial section of the Tribune, about the reappointment of W.W. Rostow to the faculty at MIT. Could you provide some background about what prompted you to write it? Barnes: Sure. The Tribune had editorialized to the effect that MIT's refusal to take Rostow back was a breach of academic freedom, basing this conclusion on the assumption that MIT would not take Rostow back because of his opinions about the war-because of his attitudes about the war. Now, I feel that it is not only irrelevant, but really obtuse, to attend to Rostow's opinions and to ignore his actions. He was a man invested with power by the administration, who knew that his decisions about the war would be carried into effect. And, they were carried into effect. So, he stands near the top of a chain of command concerning the activities of the American military in Vietnam. Now, this war is not only in violation of the law of the land because it contravenes numerous treat.es we have signed, but it is also a war 2SLV,?f dai'rthe 'aWS conceng humane conduct of war as la.d down in the Geneva and Hague Conventions on that subject. It violates these laws, for example, by its callous abuse 1949 a PP"lation- T Civilians Convention of SoL r SPeclfica"y ate that you cannot forcibly relocate civilian populations in conducting a war WeU "e hctonehoatf ,B We have tne cornerstone of our policy in many areas in Vietnam experiences. For instance, when I'm teaching about i n. class, I find there is an invariable responses the students of repugnance to the barbarityi-Homer, barbarityi-Homer, to the incredibly callous f blood-letting ... and yet, these same st "tor: away from the class-room turning a blind eye. After country is perpetrating in Vietnam-loos at Stud if it had no moral significance whatsoever! iciety react with moral outrage to a 2500 ) pnized carnage, how is it that we cannot react the- w lean the killing done by our fellow citizens, ix st five financed by our taxes? , t J1 There are various reasons why peopk ' I and, of course, one is that there s - 'noted, participation in the activity of warw tab w, ir the individual-lift him out of his makes him a part of a larger who e-a f ty There is also a covert racism involved' ; on Khan: Could you explain whatyo.Mic, racism? ;j annus wit Barnes: Well, what I have , 'J racism playing a part in the puo )rt Do war ... I think we can bring out ay be consider what public response rnign ; Du such a war in, let's say, Englanc orfl e WMkjn the public think, for example, a wt ' i,ich England, where we knew vi" r , ( residing? What would the public ou w ( . ,e short we forcibly relocated citizens m ui. B have , out of their ancestral homes, burning, destroying their crops, shootl7n(lirS?P atlnal Gi herded them into barbed-wire enciosu u respond to a war of that sort. $ ly atte When you ask questions like iiw niversity why our condescension toward s A ,., bvert the , .trivial regard for their lives workss" in ; acceptance of this war. |
